Gauhati High Court
Smti Bijaya Sahu vs The United India Insurance Co. ... on 5 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010018412017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1073/2017
SMTI BIJAYA SAHU,
W/O SRI PUNAM CHAND SAHU, MILANPUR, DERGAON, P.O. and P.S.
DERGAON, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. and 4 ORS,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROADS, CHENNAI AND
ITS REGIONAL OFFICE KNOWN AS GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHANGAGRH, OPPOSITE HUB SHOPPING MALL, GUWAHATI-781005,
KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
2:KISHORE KUMAR AGARWALLA
S/O M.L. AGARWALLA
A.T. ROAD
HAIBOR GAON
DIST. NAGAON
ASSAM.
3:PRADEEP DAS
S/O LT. S. DAS
PANIGAON
NOWGAON
P.O.NOWGAON
DIST. NOWGAON
ASSAM
4:GANESH SAHU
Page No.# 2/6
NEGHERITING
KALYAN NAGAR
P.O. NEGHERITING
P.S. DERGAON
DIST. GOLAGHAT
ASSAM.
5:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI-7
DIST. KAMRUP M ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.S KHANIKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL
Linked Case : MAC.App./283700/2016 (Filing Number)
SMTI BIJAYA SAHU
2: SMTI BABLI DEY
D/O SRI JANIMOY DEY
BOTH ARE R/O LALGANESH
PRAGATI NAGAR PATH
P.S. FATASIL AMBARI
IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 4 ORS
------------
Advocate for : MS.P BARUAH
Advocate for : appearing for THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD and 4
ORS
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 05.09.2022
Heard Ms. P. Baruah, learned counsel for the applicant
and Mr. R. C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.1
and Mr. G. S. Boro, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. As per Office Note dated 16.08.2022, Notices on
respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 could not be served as because of
insufficient address.
3. This application has been filed by the claimant being
aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 14.03.2016
passed by the learned Member, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 08/2010 whereby the
claim petition of the applicant was allowed and an amount of
Rs.44,877/- (Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred
seventy seven) only was directed to be paid by the Opposite
Party No.3 namely, the respondent No.1 herein i.e. United
Insurance Company. According to the claimant the awarded
amount was grossly inadequate and therefore, being
aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. In the process of
filing the statutory appeal, 98 days have condoned and
therefore present application has been filed.
4. The Tribunal vide Judgment and Award dated
14.03.2016 directed the compensation of an amount of Rs.
44,877/- (Rupees forty four thousand eight hundred seventy
Page No.# 4/6
seven) only to be paid by the insurance company only. No
directions have been issued by the Tribunal against the other
Opposite Parties/respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 herein.
5. Considering the fact that this is an appeal filed by the
claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of
compensation, awarded by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 08/2010, which was
directed to be paid by the United India Insurance Company i.e.
O.P./ respondent No.1, herein, this Court is of the view that no
prejudiced will be caused to respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 as this
Court proceeds to hear the prayer for condonation of delay
without awaiting for return of service of Notice on the said
respondents No. 2, 3 and 4, as the Tribunal did not pass any
directions against the said respondents. The said respondents
will be given adequate opportunity of being heard at the time
of hearing the appeal.
6. The learned counsels for the parties have been heard
and the pleadings on record have been perused. The ground
urged in the application for condonation of delay is as under:-
"5. That after the accident the applicant became
permanently disabled person and lost his earning capacity at
100%for ever. At the time of accident, the applicant was 40
years old and was doing the job of weaving. Being
aggrieved by the above inadequate Award, the
applicant/claimant decided to file an appeal before the
Hon'ble Court praying for enhancement of the same. But the
Page No.# 5/6
applicant due to financial hardships and being physically
handicapped could not come to Guwahati to entrust the
case to her advocate. With lot of difficulties she arranged
some money and come to Guwahati for the purpose of filing
this appeal before this Hon'ble Court in the second week of
September, 2016 and the engaged counsel prepared the
Appeal and filed on 27.09.16. Due to the above reasons the
delay of 98 days has occurred in filing this appeal before
this Hon'ble Court."
7. Upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the
parties and upon consideration of the grounds urged, this
Court is of the view that the grounds urged can be considered
to be sufficient explanation of the delay that has occurred in
filing the accompanying appeal. The explanation put forth for
the delay that has occurred does not reveal any mala fides nor
can it be seen as a dilatory strategy. On the grounds urged in
the I.A., this Court finds that the delay that had occurred in
filing the accompanying appeal can be condoned. Relying upon
the principle of law laid down in N. Balakrishnan -Vs- M.
Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 123, the delay of 98
days in filing the accompanying appeal against the Judgment
and Award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the MACT, Golaghat in
MAC Case No. 08/2010 is hereby condoned.
8. Interlocutory Application is accordingly allowed and
disposed of.
9. Registry is directed to number the accompanying appeal
Page No.# 6/6
and list it before the Court after 2 (two) weeks. Registry is also
directed to reflect the names of all the counsels.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
